(3) An application to the High Court for the determination of any question under subsection (1)(b)or 1(c) of this section may be made by any elected member of the House or by the Attorney General, or if it is made by a person other than the Attorney General, the Attorney General may intervene and may then appear to be represented in the proceedings. (4) An Application to the High Court for the determination of any question under subsection (1)(d) of this section may be made(a) by an elected member of the House or by the Attorney General; or (b) in the case of the seat of an elected member of the House, by any person registered in some constituency as a voter for the purpose of selecting Representatives, and, if it is made by a person other than the Attorney General, the Attorney General may intervene and may then appear to be represented in the proceedings. (5) The circumstances and matter in which and the imposition of conditions upon which any application may be made to the High Court for the determination of any question under this section and the powers, practice and procedure of the High Court in relation to any such applications shall be regulated by such provision as may be made by Parliament. … (8) In the exercise of his functions under this section, the Attorney General shall not be subject to the direction of control of any other person or authority…” [61] Learned Counsel, Mrs. Baron-Royer, first submitted that the allegation is vague and embarrassing in that it fails to specifically state what aspect of Section 40 of the Constitution the Speaker violated. Further she contended, that section 40 of the Constitution confers jurisdiction on the High Court to hear matters and does not create a right, restriction or requirement or any such thing that is capable of being violated by the Speaker; therefore it is impossible that the Speaker could have breached this section of   18